Separation of church and state makes him want to throw up

[Immanuel]

NO NO NO, you misunderstood. Syphon is of the belief that the first amendment prevents businesses and individuals from curtailing the rights of others.

IOW he believes the first amendment means that a message board can limit someone's speech, for example.

Lol

Does he realize that the First Amendment only applies to the government?

Does he realize that he can't sue me personally if I own a karaoke club and he goes on stage and sounds like... well, sounds like me, that he can't sue me if I turn the mike off so no one can hear him because he is driving my customers away?

Immie

here a link showing an example of a business being sued and the patron winning because they were gay, and the owner of the restaurant refused them service
The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.


oops u got pwned again.

You do realize that the cases you mention are all related to federally protected classes don't you? No, you are too much of an idiot to understand that.

Denny's cannot refuse service to a group of black people because the government has decided that discrimination based on race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation etc. etc. etc. is not to be accepted.

Now, idiot, maybe you would point out which of these the woman in the pharmacy discussion fits under. Keep in mind, I know this is above your intelligence level, but the pharmacy does not sell Plan B to ANYONE!

And by the way, did you by chance read your proof text idiot about the California Motorcyclye club? The court ruled that the establishment did not discriminate against the club and was under no obligation to allow them entry. Do you understand what this part means?

For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors

It means you won my argument for me! Dumb shit! The motorcycle club lost its case! Do you understand that idiot?

Pwned? What the fuck are you 13? Grow the fuck up or sign up for sesamestreet.com's forums.

Immie

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

i just heard that some jews want to put some jewish symbols on the legislative buildings in DC. anybody got a problem with that?

No.

also, some imams want to put some islamic symbols on those same buildings. anybody got a problem with that?

I have a problem with ANYONE adding ANYTHING to those old landmarks.

 

[Spectre13]

All you rw's - is THAT really what you want?Do you really want some evangelical fruitcake telling you what's allowed in your bedroom?

Well, to be fair, I think the answer is yes. Evidently a pretty healthy percentage of them want to be led by a person who puts his/her religion above all else. I suppose they think that those of us who aren't so thrilled about that are the great unwashed masses, and that such rule will show us the error of our ways. There are other countries whose leaders do that, too, but I don't think I'll mention them right now.

.

I will. This is exactly what the arabs do in their governments. Rick Santorum is closer to the eastern theocracies than he is with our pseudo-democracy.

 

[Spectre13]

You might want to look up what a common law system is since that is what this country is. Case law interpreting the words of the constitution has equal weight with the document itself, since we aren't a code state like France.

You would do well to actually learn something about constitutional construction.

Isn't that the problem we are talking about? The common law system?

That's kind of like the people who blame capitalism of the housing and Wall Street crashes....Kind hard to make that claim when that's not the real world paradigm in place.

I don't know anyone stupid enough to believe capitalism is the culprit. The culprit is greed. The culprit is extreme hubris and a sociopathic nature...and a corporation / "person" who is inherantly pschopathic by nature; which will grind any and everyone into dust to get to the bottom line.

Let me remind, it is a passive system. It is what one does with this passive system that makes it bad or good. It's like blaming Santa Clause for the overcommercialization of Christmas!

 

[Spectre13]

You might want to look up what a common law system is since that is what this country is. Case law interpreting the words of the constitution has equal weight with the document itself, since we aren't a code state like France.

You would do well to actually learn something about constitutional construction.

While we did take many things from French Jurisprudence, we are not France and like democracies, we are not like other democracies. We have to apply former systems to fit our system. Of course, our pseudo-democracy should look to Switzerland for pointers on a real democracy. Because our democracy is dead, we need a new system anyway. Our system has de-evolved into a complicated plutocracy or what I call and economic oligarchy run by big businesses who have bought Congress and it is now a choice between rich guys, which is no choice at all.

We have never been a democracy...we're a federal republic.

I think the term was Republican Democracy.

 

[Syphon]

While we did take many things from French Jurisprudence, we are not France and like democracies, we are not like other democracies. We have to apply former systems to fit our system. Of course, our pseudo-democracy should look to Switzerland for pointers on a real democracy. Because our democracy is dead, we need a new system anyway. Our system has de-evolved into a complicated plutocracy or what I call and economic oligarchy run by big businesses who have bought Congress and it is now a choice between rich guys, which is no choice at all.

We have never been a democracy...we're a federal republic.

I think the term was Republican Democracy.

its a representative republic

 

[Spectre13]

We have never been a democracy...we're a federal republic.

I think the term was Republican Democracy.

its a representative republic

Whatever the term, it is close enough that almost everyone refers to it as a democracy. We only need to define the differnence on a technical basis. Whatever it is,(insert your own terminology here), it is dead or is suffocating and near the end. It is run by money and the rich in the end, just as if Vlad Putin was handling the whole thing. It is Captain Dunsell and needs a complete overhaul.

I like Switzerland's direct democracy, where the population can overturn anything that is not in the people's interest. Now that technology can easily handle voting on a massive scale, real live demcracy could work like the Greeks envisioned it.

 

[Syphon]

I think the term was Republican Democracy.

its a representative republic

Whatever the term, it is close enough that almost everyone refers to it as a democracy. We only need to define the differnence on a technical basis. Whatever it is,(insert your own terminology here), it is dead or is suffocating and near the end. It is run by money and the rich in the end, just as if Vlad Putin was handling the whole thing. It is Captain Dunsell and needs a complete overhaul.

I like Switzerland's direct democracy, where the population can overturn anything that is not in the people's interest. Now that technology can easily handle voting on a massive scale, real live demcracy could work like the Greeks envisioned it.

i agree with trying to make us a full democracy where we vote on everything. unfortunately, we would see nothing ever get passed since people fully educate themselves on the issues before they vote already.

 

[grunt11b]

Santorum: Separation Of Church And State 'Makes Me Want To Throw Up'

Damn that pesky little First Amendment. Its just SO inconvenient to Santorum.

Sadly, there are many rw's who are so dumb, they actually don't realize what this creep is saying.

Makes me want to throw up as well, being that there is no separation of church and state in the constitution and has absolutely nothing to do with law. It was written in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the danbury baptist church, and communists made it a part of their goal to push it as law since the 60's, and apparently some of you have bought into it.
Check out number 28.
Communist Goals - 1963 Congressional Record

 

[koshergrl]

I think the term was Republican Democracy.

its a representative republic

Whatever the term, it is close enough that almost everyone refers to it as a democracy. We only need to define the differnence on a technical basis. Whatever it is,(insert your own terminology here), it is dead or is suffocating and near the end. It is run by money and the rich in the end, just as if Vlad Putin was handling the whole thing. It is Captain Dunsell and needs a complete overhaul.

I like Switzerland's direct democracy, where the population can overturn anything that is not in the people's interest. Now that technology can easily handle voting on a massive scale, real live demcracy could work like the Greeks envisioned it.

Real live democracy is essentially mob rule. That is not what our country was, is, or ever should be.

 

[grunt11b]

While we did take many things from French Jurisprudence, we are not France and like democracies, we are not like other democracies. We have to apply former systems to fit our system. Of course, our pseudo-democracy should look to Switzerland for pointers on a real democracy. Because our democracy is dead, we need a new system anyway. Our system has de-evolved into a complicated plutocracy or what I call and economic oligarchy run by big businesses who have bought Congress and it is now a choice between rich guys, which is no choice at all.

We have never been a democracy...we're a federal republic.

I think the term was Republican Democracy.

Republican form of government I believe is what they labeled it.

 

[Syphon]

Santorum: Separation Of Church And State 'Makes Me Want To Throw Up'

Damn that pesky little First Amendment. Its just SO inconvenient to Santorum.

Sadly, there are many rw's who are so dumb, they actually don't realize what this creep is saying.

Makes me want to throw up as well, being that there is no separation of church and state in the constitution and has absolutely nothing to do with law. It was written in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the danbury baptist church, and communists made it a part of their goal to push it as law since the 60's, and apparently some of you have bought into it.
Check out number 28.
Communist Goals - 1963 Congressional Record

actually the supreme court ruled that the first amendment does establish a separation between the church and state. this is responsibility given to them by that very same constitution.

In 1962, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of officially-sponsored prayer or religious recitations in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court, by a vote of 6-1, determined it unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when the prayer is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. (The prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the Court's decision consisted of: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country. Amen.") As the Court stated:
The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.
The court noted that it "is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America."[40] The lone dissenter, Justice Potter Stewart, objected to the court's embrace of the "wall of separation" metaphor: "I think that the Court's task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication, is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the "wall of separation," a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution."
In Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), the Supreme Court considered an Arkansas law that made it a crime "to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals," or "to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches" this theory in any school or university that received public funds. The court's opinion, written by Justice Abe Fortas, ruled that the Arkansas law violated "the constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group." The court held that the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from advancing any religion, and that "[T]he state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them." [41]
In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the court determined that a Pennsylvania state policy of reimbursing the salaries of teachers of secular subjects in religious schools or the costs of secular instructional materials in religious schools violated the Establishment Clause. The court's decision argued that the separation of church and state could never be absolute: "Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable," the court wrote. "Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a "wall," is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship."
Subsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test". First, the law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute or policy must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of government with religion.[42] (The decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman hinged upon the conclusion that the government benefits were flowing disproportionately to Catholic schools, and that Catholic schools were an integral component of the Catholic Church's religious mission, thus the policy involved the state in an "excessive entanglement" with religion.) Failure to meet any of these criteria is a proof that the statute or policy in question violates the Establishment Clause.
In 2002, a three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in a California public school was unconstitutional, even when students were not compelled to recite it, due to the inclusion of the phrase "under God." In reaction to the case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, both houses of Congress passed measures reaffirming their support for the pledge, and condemning the panel's ruling.[43] The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case was ultimately overturned in June 2004, solely on procedural grounds not related to the substantive constitutional issue. Rather, a five-justice majority held that Newdow, a non-custodial parent suing on behalf of his daughter, lacked standing to sue.
When the Louisiana state legislature passed a law requiring public school biology teachers to give Creationism and Evolution equal time in the classroom, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it was intended to advance a particular religion, and did not serve the secular purpose of improved scientific education.[44] (See also: Creation and evolution in public education)
The display of the Ten Commandments as part of courthouse displays was considered in a group of cases decided in summer of 2005, including McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky and Van Orden v. Perry. While parties on both sides hoped for a reformulation or clarification of the Lemon test, the two rulings ended with narrow 5-4 and opposing decisions, with Justice Stephen Breyer the swing vote.
On December 20, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in the case of ACLU v. Mercer County that the continued display of the Ten Commandments as part of a larger display on American legal traditions in a Kentucky courthouse was allowed, because the purpose of the display (educating the public on American legal traditions) was secular in nature.[45] In ruling on the Mount Soledad cross controversy on May 3, 2006, however, a federal judge ruled that the cross on public property on Mount Soledad must be removed.[46]

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

No.

also, some imams want to put some islamic symbols on those same buildings. anybody got a problem with that?

I have a problem with ANYONE adding ANYTHING to those old landmarks.

well, you better talk to some people in this thread. it appears that a few don't mind jewish symbols being added.

 

[Disturbed1]

Damn that pesky little First Amendment. Its just SO inconvenient to Santorum.

Sadly, there are many rw's who are so dumb, they actually don't realize what this creep is saying.[/quote]
****************************************************
The first amendment guarantees us the right to freedom of religion. It says nothing about separation of Church and state. However, I find it interesting that leftists who love to talk about "separation of Church and state" never have anything to say about this lovely mandate from Obama that forces religious institutions to pay for insurance which provides services that they are morally opposed to, infringing on their religious freedoms.
Insurances have to provide contraception "free of charge". Really? So, are the insurance companies going to eat the cost? No way, they're going to pass it on to the consumer. That's going to really help keep insurance rates down, isn't it? So much for "obamacare" reducing healthcare costs....unbelievable.

 

[Disturbed1]

actually the supreme court ruled that the first amendment does establish a separation between the church and state. this is responsibility given to them by that very same constitution.
******************************************************************

Great then Obama should not be able to force religious institutions to provide or pay for (by way of paying for the insurance providing it) things which go against their religious beliefs. That is exactly what's going on with this whole contraception mandate.

 

[grunt11b]

Santorum: Separation Of Church And State 'Makes Me Want To Throw Up'

Damn that pesky little First Amendment. Its just SO inconvenient to Santorum.

Sadly, there are many rw's who are so dumb, they actually don't realize what this creep is saying.

Makes me want to throw up as well, being that there is no separation of church and state in the constitution and has absolutely nothing to do with law. It was written in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the danbury baptist church, and communists made it a part of their goal to push it as law since the 60's, and apparently some of you have bought into it.
Check out number 28.
Communist Goals - 1963 Congressional Record

actually the supreme court ruled that the first amendment does establish a separation between the church and state. this is responsibility given to them by that very same constitution.

In 1962, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of officially-sponsored prayer or religious recitations in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court, by a vote of 6-1, determined it unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when the prayer is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. (The prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the Court's decision consisted of: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country. Amen.") As the Court stated:
The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.
The court noted that it "is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America."[40] The lone dissenter, Justice Potter Stewart, objected to the court's embrace of the "wall of separation" metaphor: "I think that the Court's task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication, is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the "wall of separation," a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution."
In Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), the Supreme Court considered an Arkansas law that made it a crime "to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals," or "to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches" this theory in any school or university that received public funds. The court's opinion, written by Justice Abe Fortas, ruled that the Arkansas law violated "the constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group." The court held that the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from advancing any religion, and that "[T]he state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them." [41]
In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the court determined that a Pennsylvania state policy of reimbursing the salaries of teachers of secular subjects in religious schools or the costs of secular instructional materials in religious schools violated the Establishment Clause. The court's decision argued that the separation of church and state could never be absolute: "Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable," the court wrote. "Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a "wall," is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship."
Subsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test". First, the law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute or policy must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of government with religion.[42] (The decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman hinged upon the conclusion that the government benefits were flowing disproportionately to Catholic schools, and that Catholic schools were an integral component of the Catholic Church's religious mission, thus the policy involved the state in an "excessive entanglement" with religion.) Failure to meet any of these criteria is a proof that the statute or policy in question violates the Establishment Clause.
In 2002, a three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in a California public school was unconstitutional, even when students were not compelled to recite it, due to the inclusion of the phrase "under God." In reaction to the case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, both houses of Congress passed measures reaffirming their support for the pledge, and condemning the panel's ruling.[43] The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case was ultimately overturned in June 2004, solely on procedural grounds not related to the substantive constitutional issue. Rather, a five-justice majority held that Newdow, a non-custodial parent suing on behalf of his daughter, lacked standing to sue.
When the Louisiana state legislature passed a law requiring public school biology teachers to give Creationism and Evolution equal time in the classroom, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it was intended to advance a particular religion, and did not serve the secular purpose of improved scientific education.[44] (See also: Creation and evolution in public education)
The display of the Ten Commandments as part of courthouse displays was considered in a group of cases decided in summer of 2005, including McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky and Van Orden v. Perry. While parties on both sides hoped for a reformulation or clarification of the Lemon test, the two rulings ended with narrow 5-4 and opposing decisions, with Justice Stephen Breyer the swing vote.
On December 20, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in the case of ACLU v. Mercer County that the continued display of the Ten Commandments as part of a larger display on American legal traditions in a Kentucky courthouse was allowed, because the purpose of the display (educating the public on American legal traditions) was secular in nature.[45] In ruling on the Mount Soledad cross controversy on May 3, 2006, however, a federal judge ruled that the cross on public property on Mount Soledad must be removed.[46]

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You ever read the federalist papers? Our supreme court has looked to them many times over the years to make decisions regarding what the founders original intent was when they wrote the constitution. Somehow I do not see the supreme court deciding that there is a separation of church and state in the 1st amendment if they looked to the federalist papers to see original intent, that is unless they based the decision off of judicial activism instead of the constitution and the federalist papers. The founders never intended that religion be separated from state, some of them worshiped on Sundays at the capital almost every Sunday. Today that would never happen.

 

[grunt11b]

Damn that pesky little First Amendment. Its just SO inconvenient to Santorum.

Sadly, there are many rw's who are so dumb, they actually don't realize what this creep is saying.

Somehow I just dont see santorum trampling anymore on our constitutional rights than the current occupant of the white has has done in the last 3 years.
Everyone should be pointing fingers at Obama, but instead we are discussing stupid shit like this, which is what the left wants before this election, because Obama and his supporters cannot run on their record.

 

[Syphon]

actually the supreme court ruled that the first amendment does establish a separation between the church and state. this is responsibility given to them by that very same constitution.
******************************************************************

Great then Obama should not be able to force religious institutions to provide or pay for (by way of paying for the insurance providing it) things which go against their religious beliefs. That is exactly what's going on with this whole contraception mandate.

the problem with your argument is that once you upon up a hole like this, health care providers can then refuse to stop carrying products or services based on religious views. what if a catholic hospital refuses to admit a gay patient because they disagree with his/her lifestyle? what if a religious hospital refuses to admit an aids patient because AIDS (in their eyes) is a disease created to punish gays. what if a rape victim is brought by ambulance to a religious controlled hospital and that hospital refuses to carry emergency contraception.

this opens up a huge can of worms, and it actually a great argument for a single payer systems where everyone has access to the same care and services, while everyone pays the same price.

 

[Syphon]

Makes me want to throw up as well, being that there is no separation of church and state in the constitution and has absolutely nothing to do with law. It was written in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the danbury baptist church, and communists made it a part of their goal to push it as law since the 60's, and apparently some of you have bought into it.
Check out number 28.
Communist Goals - 1963 Congressional Record

actually the supreme court ruled that the first amendment does establish a separation between the church and state. this is responsibility given to them by that very same constitution.

In 1962, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of officially-sponsored prayer or religious recitations in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court, by a vote of 6-1, determined it unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when the prayer is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. (The prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the Court's decision consisted of: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country. Amen.") As the Court stated:
The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.
The court noted that it "is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America."[40] The lone dissenter, Justice Potter Stewart, objected to the court's embrace of the "wall of separation" metaphor: "I think that the Court's task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication, is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the "wall of separation," a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution."
In Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), the Supreme Court considered an Arkansas law that made it a crime "to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals," or "to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches" this theory in any school or university that received public funds. The court's opinion, written by Justice Abe Fortas, ruled that the Arkansas law violated "the constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group." The court held that the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from advancing any religion, and that "[T]he state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them." [41]
In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the court determined that a Pennsylvania state policy of reimbursing the salaries of teachers of secular subjects in religious schools or the costs of secular instructional materials in religious schools violated the Establishment Clause. The court's decision argued that the separation of church and state could never be absolute: "Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable," the court wrote. "Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a "wall," is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship."
Subsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test". First, the law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute or policy must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of government with religion.[42] (The decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman hinged upon the conclusion that the government benefits were flowing disproportionately to Catholic schools, and that Catholic schools were an integral component of the Catholic Church's religious mission, thus the policy involved the state in an "excessive entanglement" with religion.) Failure to meet any of these criteria is a proof that the statute or policy in question violates the Establishment Clause.
In 2002, a three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in a California public school was unconstitutional, even when students were not compelled to recite it, due to the inclusion of the phrase "under God." In reaction to the case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, both houses of Congress passed measures reaffirming their support for the pledge, and condemning the panel's ruling.[43] The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case was ultimately overturned in June 2004, solely on procedural grounds not related to the substantive constitutional issue. Rather, a five-justice majority held that Newdow, a non-custodial parent suing on behalf of his daughter, lacked standing to sue.
When the Louisiana state legislature passed a law requiring public school biology teachers to give Creationism and Evolution equal time in the classroom, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it was intended to advance a particular religion, and did not serve the secular purpose of improved scientific education.[44] (See also: Creation and evolution in public education)
The display of the Ten Commandments as part of courthouse displays was considered in a group of cases decided in summer of 2005, including McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky and Van Orden v. Perry. While parties on both sides hoped for a reformulation or clarification of the Lemon test, the two rulings ended with narrow 5-4 and opposing decisions, with Justice Stephen Breyer the swing vote.
On December 20, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in the case of ACLU v. Mercer County that the continued display of the Ten Commandments as part of a larger display on American legal traditions in a Kentucky courthouse was allowed, because the purpose of the display (educating the public on American legal traditions) was secular in nature.[45] In ruling on the Mount Soledad cross controversy on May 3, 2006, however, a federal judge ruled that the cross on public property on Mount Soledad must be removed.[46]

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You ever read the federalist papers? Our supreme court has looked to them many times over the years to make decisions regarding what the founders original intent was when they wrote the constitution. Somehow I do not see the supreme court deciding that there is a separation of church and state in the 1st amendment if they looked to the federalist papers to see original intent, that is unless they based the decision off of judicial activism instead of the constitution and the federalist papers. The founders never intended that religion be separated from state, some of them worshiped on Sundays at the capital almost every Sunday. Today that would never happen.

they did intend there to be a separation since in England where they came from, everyone was forced to be part of the Church of England. but they also intended for there to be freedom to worship as you chose.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

Makes me want to throw up as well, being that there is no separation of church and state in the constitution and has absolutely nothing to do with law. It was written in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the danbury baptist church, and communists made it a part of their goal to push it as law since the 60's, and apparently some of you have bought into it.
Check out number 28.
Communist Goals - 1963 Congressional Record

actually the supreme court ruled that the first amendment does establish a separation between the church and state. this is responsibility given to them by that very same constitution.

In 1962, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of officially-sponsored prayer or religious recitations in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court, by a vote of 6-1, determined it unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when the prayer is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. (The prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the Court's decision consisted of: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country. Amen.") As the Court stated:
The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.
The court noted that it "is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America."[40] The lone dissenter, Justice Potter Stewart, objected to the court's embrace of the "wall of separation" metaphor: "I think that the Court's task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication, is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the "wall of separation," a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution."
In Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), the Supreme Court considered an Arkansas law that made it a crime "to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals," or "to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches" this theory in any school or university that received public funds. The court's opinion, written by Justice Abe Fortas, ruled that the Arkansas law violated "the constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group." The court held that the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from advancing any religion, and that "[T]he state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them." [41]
In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the court determined that a Pennsylvania state policy of reimbursing the salaries of teachers of secular subjects in religious schools or the costs of secular instructional materials in religious schools violated the Establishment Clause. The court's decision argued that the separation of church and state could never be absolute: "Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable," the court wrote. "Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a "wall," is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship."
Subsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test". First, the law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute or policy must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of government with religion.[42] (The decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman hinged upon the conclusion that the government benefits were flowing disproportionately to Catholic schools, and that Catholic schools were an integral component of the Catholic Church's religious mission, thus the policy involved the state in an "excessive entanglement" with religion.) Failure to meet any of these criteria is a proof that the statute or policy in question violates the Establishment Clause.
In 2002, a three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in a California public school was unconstitutional, even when students were not compelled to recite it, due to the inclusion of the phrase "under God." In reaction to the case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, both houses of Congress passed measures reaffirming their support for the pledge, and condemning the panel's ruling.[43] The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case was ultimately overturned in June 2004, solely on procedural grounds not related to the substantive constitutional issue. Rather, a five-justice majority held that Newdow, a non-custodial parent suing on behalf of his daughter, lacked standing to sue.
When the Louisiana state legislature passed a law requiring public school biology teachers to give Creationism and Evolution equal time in the classroom, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it was intended to advance a particular religion, and did not serve the secular purpose of improved scientific education.[44] (See also: Creation and evolution in public education)
The display of the Ten Commandments as part of courthouse displays was considered in a group of cases decided in summer of 2005, including McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky and Van Orden v. Perry. While parties on both sides hoped for a reformulation or clarification of the Lemon test, the two rulings ended with narrow 5-4 and opposing decisions, with Justice Stephen Breyer the swing vote.
On December 20, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in the case of ACLU v. Mercer County that the continued display of the Ten Commandments as part of a larger display on American legal traditions in a Kentucky courthouse was allowed, because the purpose of the display (educating the public on American legal traditions) was secular in nature.[45] In ruling on the Mount Soledad cross controversy on May 3, 2006, however, a federal judge ruled that the cross on public property on Mount Soledad must be removed.[46]

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You ever read the federalist papers? Our supreme court has looked to them many times over the years to make decisions regarding what the founders original intent was when they wrote the constitution. Somehow I do not see the supreme court deciding that there is a separation of church and state in the 1st amendment if they looked to the federalist papers to see original intent, that is unless they based the decision off of judicial activism instead of the constitution and the federalist papers. The founders never intended that religion be separated from state, some of them worshiped on Sundays at the capital almost every Sunday. Today that would never happen.

and if the service was Islam, would you be okay?